po18guy
Well-known member
So, is God hard of hearing? Why does He need the Saints?
- Status
P
Pax
Guest
Erik_Ybarra in Christ,
Here is a little more for you to consider concerning the papacy and its foundation. This was written by a former poster on this board that went by the name of Steve G. This is what he presented:
Authority and Interpretation in Jewish Culture during Jesus’ life
It would seem to me that the best place to start would be to look at what model of authority and interpretation existed during the life of Jesus. We can then look to see we can find out whether Jesus Himself had any view on that model.
The Sanhedrin
We do in fact know that a model existed. It was the Sanhedrin. During Jesus’ life the Sanhedrin was the supreme council and court of justice among the Jews. The exact origins of the Sanhedrin is a subject of debate. Some experts tie it to the council of seventy found in Numbers Chapter 11. Some have sought to link its origin to the founding of the ‘Great Synagogue’ of which tradition attributed to Esdras. Other interpretations have also been offered. Regardless of it’s origin, it is widely acknowledged (including in the New Testament (NT)) that it was the seat of religious power in Judaism at the time of Jesus.
According to the testimony of the Mishna (Sanh., i, 6; Shebuoth, ii, 2), confirmed by a remark of Josephus newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm (“Bell. Jud.”, II, xx, 5), the Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-one members, president included. Jewish tradition appealed to Numbers 9:16, to justify this number and indeed the model of 70 elders in addition to Moses as ‘president’ does seem to fit fairly well.
According to what rules the members were appointed and the vacancies filled up is unclear; it seems that various customs prevailed on this point at different periods. Since the Sanhedrin had to deal frequently with legal matters, it was natural that many of its members should be chosen from among men specially given to the study of the Law; this is why we so often hear of the scribes and Pharisees in the Sanhedrin. Most of those scribes during the time of Christ were Pharisees, with other members being of the Sadducee persuasion. At any rate we are told (Sanh., iv, 4) that a semikah, or imposition of hands, took place at the formal installation of the new appointees; and there is every reason to believe that the appointment was for life.
The jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin varied in extension at different periods. At the time of the public life of Jesus, only the eleven toparchies of Judea were de jure subject to the Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem; however, de facto the Jews all the world over acknowledged its authority (as an instances of this, see Acts 9:2; 22:5; 26:12). As the supreme court of justice of the nation, the Sanhedrin was appealed to when the lower courts were unable to come to a decision (Sanh., vii, 1; xi, 2); moreover, it had the exclusive right of judgment in matters of special importance, as for instance the case of a false prophet, accusations against the high priest, the sending out of an army in certain circumstances, the enlarging of the city of Jerusalem, or of the Temple courts, etc. (Sanh., i, 5; ii, 4; iii, 4); the few instances mentioned in the New Testament exemplify the cases to which the competency of the Sanhedrin extended; in short, all religious matters and all civil matters not claimed by Roman authority were within its attributions; and the decisions issued by its judges were to be held inviolable (Sanh., xi, 2-4).
Evidence 1
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.
Jesus’ View
Seeing that this is the case, we must then ask if we can determine what Jesus thought of this model. Let us take a look at Matthew 23: 1-10…
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.
Regardless of the historical debate of its origins, Jesus here is linking the Sanhedrin directly to Moses and the seventy for us. Moses’ seat in the context of Christ’s comments clearly represents Moses teaching authority. Jesus is telling us the Sanhedrin now has this authority. In this statement he is explicitly endorsing that teaching authority in the model outlined above.
As an aside, this bodes ill for Sola Scriptura in a double manner. Firstly, because Jesus here endorses the teaching authority of the Sanhedrin while making no mention of Torah authority. Secondly because he is using an oral tradition Himself to teach. The ‘Seat of Moses’ is nowhere mentioned in the Old Testament (OT), but is rather an oral tradition of the Jews of that time that he assumes they will recognize.
Also note that this passage does NOT say that the scribes and Pharisees teach false doctrines. Rather, what Jesus points out is that they teach true doctrine, but they do not practice what they preach. Because they “sit in Moses’ Seat,” i.e. they teach with the authority of Moses, they must be obeyed in their teaching, i.e. their teaching is correct, but they are not to be followed by their example, “for they say, and do not.”
Evidence 1
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.
Evidence 2
The teaching authority of the Sanhedrin was explicitly endorsed by Jesus.
The New Church and Authority
It seems reasonable then to argue that if this model was endorsed by Christ, then as he was establishing His Church, he might use this same model, and his disciples would recognize it. But this can not be assumed. We must look to see if there is any indication of this.
Let us start with Matthew 18:15-18
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
In this teaching we have Jesus explaining how resolution for offenses is to be handled in the Church which he is establishing. The model follows the Jewish model of the time of an escalation of the issue until it reaches the Church/Synagogue. But ultimately it is assumed that the Church will have the authority to make a definitive judgment in the matter. In order to be a judge, one must have that authority. We already know how that authority was invested in the Jewish culture and that Jesus acknowledged and endorsed that system. It is the Catholic understanding that Jesus is making a statement here that in His Church, it is His disciples who will hold such power (i.e. the ‘new’ Sanhedrin). In giving the power to bind and loose to His disciples, he is investing in them the authority to teach, interpret and be judges in His new Church.
Who is the ‘YOU’
There are two main issues that must be clarified in order to support this understanding. Firstly, who the ‘you’ is in the ‘truly’ I say to you. Secondly, whether the power of binding and loosing does indeed indicate such authority.
Via Matt. 18:1 we know that the dialogue above was a conversation between Jesus and His disciples. During the dialogue He at times expands the context of the teaching to include a wider group (see 18:5 (whoever), 18:15(brother)), but His emphatic ‘I say unto YOU’ implies that he is addressing the next statement specifically to the conversants. In addition, in the context of the preceding versus regarding the ‘church’, it would seem non-sensical (especially in light of what we know about the Jewish authority structure), to give judgmental and teaching authority to all members. If each member has equivalent authority, then there is by definition no ‘higher’ authority to which one can appeal. It would make the investing of authority and the escalation of the issue unworkable.
cont. on next post
Here is a little more for you to consider concerning the papacy and its foundation. This was written by a former poster on this board that went by the name of Steve G. This is what he presented:
Authority and Interpretation in Jewish Culture during Jesus’ life
It would seem to me that the best place to start would be to look at what model of authority and interpretation existed during the life of Jesus. We can then look to see we can find out whether Jesus Himself had any view on that model.
The Sanhedrin
We do in fact know that a model existed. It was the Sanhedrin. During Jesus’ life the Sanhedrin was the supreme council and court of justice among the Jews. The exact origins of the Sanhedrin is a subject of debate. Some experts tie it to the council of seventy found in Numbers Chapter 11. Some have sought to link its origin to the founding of the ‘Great Synagogue’ of which tradition attributed to Esdras. Other interpretations have also been offered. Regardless of it’s origin, it is widely acknowledged (including in the New Testament (NT)) that it was the seat of religious power in Judaism at the time of Jesus.
According to the testimony of the Mishna (Sanh., i, 6; Shebuoth, ii, 2), confirmed by a remark of Josephus newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm (“Bell. Jud.”, II, xx, 5), the Sanhedrin consisted of seventy-one members, president included. Jewish tradition appealed to Numbers 9:16, to justify this number and indeed the model of 70 elders in addition to Moses as ‘president’ does seem to fit fairly well.
According to what rules the members were appointed and the vacancies filled up is unclear; it seems that various customs prevailed on this point at different periods. Since the Sanhedrin had to deal frequently with legal matters, it was natural that many of its members should be chosen from among men specially given to the study of the Law; this is why we so often hear of the scribes and Pharisees in the Sanhedrin. Most of those scribes during the time of Christ were Pharisees, with other members being of the Sadducee persuasion. At any rate we are told (Sanh., iv, 4) that a semikah, or imposition of hands, took place at the formal installation of the new appointees; and there is every reason to believe that the appointment was for life.
The jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin varied in extension at different periods. At the time of the public life of Jesus, only the eleven toparchies of Judea were de jure subject to the Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem; however, de facto the Jews all the world over acknowledged its authority (as an instances of this, see Acts 9:2; 22:5; 26:12). As the supreme court of justice of the nation, the Sanhedrin was appealed to when the lower courts were unable to come to a decision (Sanh., vii, 1; xi, 2); moreover, it had the exclusive right of judgment in matters of special importance, as for instance the case of a false prophet, accusations against the high priest, the sending out of an army in certain circumstances, the enlarging of the city of Jerusalem, or of the Temple courts, etc. (Sanh., i, 5; ii, 4; iii, 4); the few instances mentioned in the New Testament exemplify the cases to which the competency of the Sanhedrin extended; in short, all religious matters and all civil matters not claimed by Roman authority were within its attributions; and the decisions issued by its judges were to be held inviolable (Sanh., xi, 2-4).
Evidence 1
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.
Jesus’ View
Seeing that this is the case, we must then ask if we can determine what Jesus thought of this model. Let us take a look at Matthew 23: 1-10…
Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.
Regardless of the historical debate of its origins, Jesus here is linking the Sanhedrin directly to Moses and the seventy for us. Moses’ seat in the context of Christ’s comments clearly represents Moses teaching authority. Jesus is telling us the Sanhedrin now has this authority. In this statement he is explicitly endorsing that teaching authority in the model outlined above.
As an aside, this bodes ill for Sola Scriptura in a double manner. Firstly, because Jesus here endorses the teaching authority of the Sanhedrin while making no mention of Torah authority. Secondly because he is using an oral tradition Himself to teach. The ‘Seat of Moses’ is nowhere mentioned in the Old Testament (OT), but is rather an oral tradition of the Jews of that time that he assumes they will recognize.
Also note that this passage does NOT say that the scribes and Pharisees teach false doctrines. Rather, what Jesus points out is that they teach true doctrine, but they do not practice what they preach. Because they “sit in Moses’ Seat,” i.e. they teach with the authority of Moses, they must be obeyed in their teaching, i.e. their teaching is correct, but they are not to be followed by their example, “for they say, and do not.”
Evidence 1
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.
Evidence 2
The teaching authority of the Sanhedrin was explicitly endorsed by Jesus.
The New Church and Authority
It seems reasonable then to argue that if this model was endorsed by Christ, then as he was establishing His Church, he might use this same model, and his disciples would recognize it. But this can not be assumed. We must look to see if there is any indication of this.
Let us start with Matthew 18:15-18
"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
In this teaching we have Jesus explaining how resolution for offenses is to be handled in the Church which he is establishing. The model follows the Jewish model of the time of an escalation of the issue until it reaches the Church/Synagogue. But ultimately it is assumed that the Church will have the authority to make a definitive judgment in the matter. In order to be a judge, one must have that authority. We already know how that authority was invested in the Jewish culture and that Jesus acknowledged and endorsed that system. It is the Catholic understanding that Jesus is making a statement here that in His Church, it is His disciples who will hold such power (i.e. the ‘new’ Sanhedrin). In giving the power to bind and loose to His disciples, he is investing in them the authority to teach, interpret and be judges in His new Church.
Who is the ‘YOU’
There are two main issues that must be clarified in order to support this understanding. Firstly, who the ‘you’ is in the ‘truly’ I say to you. Secondly, whether the power of binding and loosing does indeed indicate such authority.
Via Matt. 18:1 we know that the dialogue above was a conversation between Jesus and His disciples. During the dialogue He at times expands the context of the teaching to include a wider group (see 18:5 (whoever), 18:15(brother)), but His emphatic ‘I say unto YOU’ implies that he is addressing the next statement specifically to the conversants. In addition, in the context of the preceding versus regarding the ‘church’, it would seem non-sensical (especially in light of what we know about the Jewish authority structure), to give judgmental and teaching authority to all members. If each member has equivalent authority, then there is by definition no ‘higher’ authority to which one can appeal. It would make the investing of authority and the escalation of the issue unworkable.
cont. on next post
P
Pax
Guest
cont. from prior post
In light of the context that Church functioning is what is actually being discussed, and in light of the Jewish model, it seems more reasonable to posit that Jesus is investing this authority in His ‘disciples’. It is also important to mention that in context of Matthew, ‘disciples’ was a much more restrictive term than crowd, or followers. I personally believe that a full reading of Matthew strongly suggests, that for whatever his purpose, Matthew did not acknowledge any other of the disciples than the twelve. Even a more expansive reading using the context of Luke, which tells us that the full circle of disciples (as opposed to followers) totaled at most seventy (hmmm, that number seventy again, another tie to the existing Jewish model?) is still fairly restrictive.
Binding and Loosing
The crucial issue is whether authority is what is being given by Jesus in this teachings. What did He mean by the terms “bind” and “loose?” These words were commonly used by Jewish rabbis. New Testament scholars agree that “binding and loosing,” when used in this way, retain the basic meaning that they had in the Jewish culture of the first century.
For example, the THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT states under the entries for “deo” and “luo” (the Greek words for binding and loosing used in Matthew), "Jesus does not give to Peter and the other disciples any power to enchant or to free by magic. The customary meaning of the Rabbinic expressions is equally incontestable, namely, to declare forbidden or permitted, and thus to impose or remove an obligation, by a doctrinal decision."1 TDNT draws the conclusion that this is the meaning of the words as used in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18.
A. T. Robertson, one of this century’s leading Greek scholars, also comments on Matthew 16:19: "To
Concerning Matthew 16:19, William Hendriksen states, "The very wording - note
Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament, under the entry "de " (to bind), states, “…by a Chaldean and rabbinic idiom to forbid, prohibit, declare illicit: Matthew 16:19; 18:18.”
In Matthew 18, Christ is clearly giving the disciples an authoritative power to teach doctrine in His Church. But these cites also reference Matthew 16:19 as well. Let us take a look now at Matthew
16:Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17: And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Here we have Christ giving this power specifically to Peter at the same time as giving him a new name of ‘Rock’ (Cephus, Petros) (chronologically this occurred earlier). So he specifically singles Peter out and gives him this authority. Why was this necessary if he was going to do so later in Matt 18. The ‘key’ to this is in the first part of the statement ‘I will give you the keys to of the kingdom of heaven’. He single Peter out because he is giving him something additional that he won’t give the other disciples in Matt. 18. So what do the keys represent?
The image of the keys is probably drawn from Isaiah 22:15-25 usccb.org/nab/bible/isaiah/isaiah22.htm where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given “the key of the house of David,” which he authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (Isaiah 22:22 usccb.org/nab/bible/isaiah/isaiah22.htm). It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. If Jesus is not giving some additional rank or authority to Peter alone, then what can it mean that Jesus not only singled him out for this blessing, but also gave the blessing with a second ‘gift’ (the keys) as well. The Protestant view that Peter here is given nothing special defies logic and again makes a statement of Jesus meaningless.
The Best Evidence - Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 In Action
If the ‘interpretations’ of the above two passages are unconvincing, then we can look elsewhere in the NT to see how Peter and the others understood Jesus’ teaching on binding and loosing by examining their actions as recorded in the Book of Acts. Acts 15 records a dispute that arose about the behavior of Gentiles who were recently becoming part of the church. Their customs were far different from the Jews, who then made up most of the church. Should the new Gentile converts be required to be circumcised and to keep other requirements of the Law of Moses? So how was this issue resolved?
1:But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2: And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
We see Paul and Barnabas heading up to the first council at Jerusalem for a resolution. They go to the ‘Apostles and Elders’ to have the issue decided. So what happens next?
6:The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7: And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8: And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; 9: and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. 10: Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11: But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” 12: And all the assembly kept silence;
What happens is that the apostles and elders debate the issue, Peter rises (note that his rising ends the debate), and gives his decision in very clear terms ‘We believe…, just as they will’. Not ‘We believe…so the should’, but ‘We believe…just as they will’. This is a definitive statement. And all the assembly kept silence. A few moments later, James concurs with Peter (this would have been ecclesiastically appropriate since they were in Jerusalem, and James was the bishop of the Church in Jerusalem). No further burden was to be placed upon the Gentile Christians. The apostles herein exercised the power of binding and loosing, as given by Jesus, and Peter took the lead role in doing so. The authority to bind and loose is the authority to declare what is God’s mind on a matter of doctrine or practice. This is what the early church did in Acts 15.
Evidence 1
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.
Evidence 2
The teaching authority of the Sanhedrin was explicitly endorsed by Jesus.
Evidence 3
Jesus invests teaching/doctrinal authority (previously held by the Sanhedrin) for His church in His disciples. His disciples recognize this commission and demonstrated such by exercising that authority.
Argument 1
Jesus intended for an authoritative body to exist in His church which would be able to teach on doctrinal issue (i.e. necessity of circumcision). That body was established and consisted of His Disciples (the Apostles and elders). That body recognized it’s authority and exercised it over the rest of the Church body. The body likewise recognized that authority and looked to it to resolve disputes (i.e. Paul and Barnabas were sent up to that body to get a judgment).
In light of the context that Church functioning is what is actually being discussed, and in light of the Jewish model, it seems more reasonable to posit that Jesus is investing this authority in His ‘disciples’. It is also important to mention that in context of Matthew, ‘disciples’ was a much more restrictive term than crowd, or followers. I personally believe that a full reading of Matthew strongly suggests, that for whatever his purpose, Matthew did not acknowledge any other of the disciples than the twelve. Even a more expansive reading using the context of Luke, which tells us that the full circle of disciples (as opposed to followers) totaled at most seventy (hmmm, that number seventy again, another tie to the existing Jewish model?) is still fairly restrictive.
Binding and Loosing
The crucial issue is whether authority is what is being given by Jesus in this teachings. What did He mean by the terms “bind” and “loose?” These words were commonly used by Jewish rabbis. New Testament scholars agree that “binding and loosing,” when used in this way, retain the basic meaning that they had in the Jewish culture of the first century.
For example, the THEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT states under the entries for “deo” and “luo” (the Greek words for binding and loosing used in Matthew), "Jesus does not give to Peter and the other disciples any power to enchant or to free by magic. The customary meaning of the Rabbinic expressions is equally incontestable, namely, to declare forbidden or permitted, and thus to impose or remove an obligation, by a doctrinal decision."1 TDNT draws the conclusion that this is the meaning of the words as used in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18.
A. T. Robertson, one of this century’s leading Greek scholars, also comments on Matthew 16:19: "To
bind' in rabbinical language is to forbid, to loose’ is to permit.Concerning Matthew 16:19, William Hendriksen states, "The very wording - note
whatever,' not whoever’ - shows that the passage refers to things, in this case beliefs and actions, not directly to people. Binding and loosing are rabbinical terms, meaning forbidding and permitting."3Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament, under the entry "de " (to bind), states, “…by a Chaldean and rabbinic idiom to forbid, prohibit, declare illicit: Matthew 16:19; 18:18.”
In Matthew 18, Christ is clearly giving the disciples an authoritative power to teach doctrine in His Church. But these cites also reference Matthew 16:19 as well. Let us take a look now at Matthew
16:Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17: And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Here we have Christ giving this power specifically to Peter at the same time as giving him a new name of ‘Rock’ (Cephus, Petros) (chronologically this occurred earlier). So he specifically singles Peter out and gives him this authority. Why was this necessary if he was going to do so later in Matt 18. The ‘key’ to this is in the first part of the statement ‘I will give you the keys to of the kingdom of heaven’. He single Peter out because he is giving him something additional that he won’t give the other disciples in Matt. 18. So what do the keys represent?
The image of the keys is probably drawn from Isaiah 22:15-25 usccb.org/nab/bible/isaiah/isaiah22.htm where Eliakim, who succeeds Shebnah as master of the palace, is given “the key of the house of David,” which he authoritatively “opens” and “shuts” (Isaiah 22:22 usccb.org/nab/bible/isaiah/isaiah22.htm). It is disputed whether the image of the keys and that of binding and loosing are different metaphors meaning the same thing. In any case, the promise of the keys is given to Peter alone. If Jesus is not giving some additional rank or authority to Peter alone, then what can it mean that Jesus not only singled him out for this blessing, but also gave the blessing with a second ‘gift’ (the keys) as well. The Protestant view that Peter here is given nothing special defies logic and again makes a statement of Jesus meaningless.
The Best Evidence - Matthew 16 and Matthew 18 In Action
If the ‘interpretations’ of the above two passages are unconvincing, then we can look elsewhere in the NT to see how Peter and the others understood Jesus’ teaching on binding and loosing by examining their actions as recorded in the Book of Acts. Acts 15 records a dispute that arose about the behavior of Gentiles who were recently becoming part of the church. Their customs were far different from the Jews, who then made up most of the church. Should the new Gentile converts be required to be circumcised and to keep other requirements of the Law of Moses? So how was this issue resolved?
1:But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2: And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
We see Paul and Barnabas heading up to the first council at Jerusalem for a resolution. They go to the ‘Apostles and Elders’ to have the issue decided. So what happens next?
6:The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. 7: And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8: And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; 9: and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. 10: Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11: But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” 12: And all the assembly kept silence;
What happens is that the apostles and elders debate the issue, Peter rises (note that his rising ends the debate), and gives his decision in very clear terms ‘We believe…, just as they will’. Not ‘We believe…so the should’, but ‘We believe…just as they will’. This is a definitive statement. And all the assembly kept silence. A few moments later, James concurs with Peter (this would have been ecclesiastically appropriate since they were in Jerusalem, and James was the bishop of the Church in Jerusalem). No further burden was to be placed upon the Gentile Christians. The apostles herein exercised the power of binding and loosing, as given by Jesus, and Peter took the lead role in doing so. The authority to bind and loose is the authority to declare what is God’s mind on a matter of doctrine or practice. This is what the early church did in Acts 15.
Evidence 1
At the time of Jesus, there existed an authoritative teaching body, which was both hierarchical, and for which succession was the method of filling vacant offices. This body was the Sanhedrin.
Evidence 2
The teaching authority of the Sanhedrin was explicitly endorsed by Jesus.
Evidence 3
Jesus invests teaching/doctrinal authority (previously held by the Sanhedrin) for His church in His disciples. His disciples recognize this commission and demonstrated such by exercising that authority.
Argument 1
Jesus intended for an authoritative body to exist in His church which would be able to teach on doctrinal issue (i.e. necessity of circumcision). That body was established and consisted of His Disciples (the Apostles and elders). That body recognized it’s authority and exercised it over the rest of the Church body. The body likewise recognized that authority and looked to it to resolve disputes (i.e. Paul and Barnabas were sent up to that body to get a judgment).
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
Yes thank you!
po18guy
Well-known member
In furtherance of the binding and loosing, let’s also look at the case of Ananias and Saphira in Acts 5:1-11. Both were guilty of the sin of fraud and of lying to the Holy Spirit in holding back a portion of the proceeds from the sale of their personal goods. Peter questioned them separately, and when they separately lied, he declared to them they had lied not to men, but to God. Both fell dead in their places. Thus, this particular behavior (sin) was held bound. And, because of this exercise of power, “…there came great fear upon the whole Church”
But, look also at what is given just four verses later Acts 5:15 "Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that when Peter came, his shadow at the least, might overshadow any of them, and they might be delivered from their infirmities.
But, look also at what is given just four verses later Acts 5:15 "Insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets, and laid them on beds and couches, that when Peter came, his shadow at the least, might overshadow any of them, and they might be delivered from their infirmities.
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
Thanks alot for that post! It was extremely illuminating.
I have some more questions.
How can we argue more strongly for succession however?
In other words, it seems to me that the Catholic Church, in particular the Pope, understands his authority in terms of his petrine office. But in my opinion, this does not alleviate him from the responsibility of maintaining and preserving the apostolic faith given to the 12 by Jesus Christ.
Therefore, one, like myself, do not see Mary Veneration, praying to the saints, and purgatory in the Church from the earliest times. Not that we need a record, but there is not even a hint.
When I see a Catholic get in a room and bow down to a statue of Mary, this is startling…no?
I have some more questions.
How can we argue more strongly for succession however?
In other words, it seems to me that the Catholic Church, in particular the Pope, understands his authority in terms of his petrine office. But in my opinion, this does not alleviate him from the responsibility of maintaining and preserving the apostolic faith given to the 12 by Jesus Christ.
Therefore, one, like myself, do not see Mary Veneration, praying to the saints, and purgatory in the Church from the earliest times. Not that we need a record, but there is not even a hint.
When I see a Catholic get in a room and bow down to a statue of Mary, this is startling…no?
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
Not even a hint? Prayer for the dead, to use one example, is based in scripture and the Christian tradition.
newadvent.org/cathen/04653a.htm
newadvent.org/cathen/04653a.htm
po18guy
Well-known member
Jesus did not return in Peter’s lifetime, as Peter probably expected. Peter was martyred and knew it was coming (John 21), just as Paul knew about his own martyrdom in his letters to Timothy. Both of them knew that much evangelization had yet to be done (Matthew 28:19). There is no evidence that Paul visited Spain, although he desired to (Romans 15). If the Church’s members were being martyred, how could they continue the organization?
Back to Acts 5 again, verses 34-39: Look at the story of Theodas and Judas the Galilean, who lead movements. Both were killed and their movements died off, lacking a leader. The Sanhedrin knew this, as Gamaliel reminded them. Since this was common knowledge, Peter and the Apostles also knew this. A leader had to be appointed should Peter be killed, or the Church would be dispersed. They had seen it happen twice already.
In John 21:15-19, Jesus not only made Peter the shepherd of his brothers, but let him know that he would die by martyrdom. The Church had to persevere, with a leader, until Christ’s return. How? It was a simple extension of the process used to replace Judas (Acts 1:15-26). See the connections being made?
Neither is the Trinity anywhere clearly expressed in the bible, yet you believe it, correct? Some things take time to develop. How many times did Jesus tell the twelve “Have you been with me this long and still you do not understand?” You and I would be no different had we walked with our Lord.
It can be until you know what is actually occurring. Why does the presence of a statue make any difference? Were there no statue, you would be thinking, “What a devout person that is” And you should be thinking the exact same thing with a statue present. The statue is a sacramental - a physical object that aids in the practice of our faith. Like a Rosary. You do not need one to contemplate the mysteries of the Gospel, but it helps. We are given five senses to use in praising the Lord. The eyes are but one of those senses.
As author Mark Shea has said, “Mary looks much larger from outside the Church than she does from within.” He knows, as he has occupied both places.
J
JM3
Guest
John 16
12 I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now.
13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.
John 21
25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.
Jesus gave us oral teachings, not written ones.
Do you worship your bed when you kneel down next to it to pray?
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
All very good points.
Yes I believe in the trinity. However Mary as the divine savior of the world with Jesus, at the moment, is a bit of a stretch, to say the least, for me. It will take time I’m sure.
I totally believe that Jesus honors his mother like any son would their loving mother. I cannot imagine the intamacy going on between them. However to install her in salvific offices which are ongoing that include divine empowerment for the whole world is something which comes close to thanking God for the new birth
Yes I believe in the trinity. However Mary as the divine savior of the world with Jesus, at the moment, is a bit of a stretch, to say the least, for me. It will take time I’m sure.
I totally believe that Jesus honors his mother like any son would their loving mother. I cannot imagine the intamacy going on between them. However to install her in salvific offices which are ongoing that include divine empowerment for the whole world is something which comes close to thanking God for the new birth
J
JM3
Guest
As I said before, Mary is in her resurrected glorious body and has the rewards that God has willed to give her. It is not for you to judge what God has given to Mary or how He continues to use her in his plan of salvation.
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
It is not for me to judge that. However I do have a right to judge that which proclaims thistruth. What if some random person taught this? Better, what if the ancient church taught this? There would still be more of a basis then a development over the centuries well passed the teaching of 40 days to disciples and the apostolic deposit.
F
franc1sc0
Guest
I am not a scholar whatso ever so take this with a grain of salt.
The apparitions of the Virgin Mary has caused many many people to convert to follow Christ. Case in Point is the Virgen de Guadalupe. Before I converted to Catholicism from a Methodist and I though it was ridiculous. People are stuck in their ways, Mexicans have always placed mothers in a very high regard. Our Father wants people to come to him. I believe what happen at Tepeyac was part of Gods plan, and he used Mother Mary to help nudge the conquered people to accept and love the God of the Conquistadors. Because of this story millions now follow Christ. Mother Mary deserves to be venerated.
I will be the first to admit some folks seem to take it to far. That is not cause the Church says they should. It maybe out of ignorance to the true teachings of the Church or other reasons. We don’t know what is going on in their hearts when they are praying in front of a statue of Mary.
God Bless,
-Frank
The apparitions of the Virgin Mary has caused many many people to convert to follow Christ. Case in Point is the Virgen de Guadalupe. Before I converted to Catholicism from a Methodist and I though it was ridiculous. People are stuck in their ways, Mexicans have always placed mothers in a very high regard. Our Father wants people to come to him. I believe what happen at Tepeyac was part of Gods plan, and he used Mother Mary to help nudge the conquered people to accept and love the God of the Conquistadors. Because of this story millions now follow Christ. Mother Mary deserves to be venerated.
I will be the first to admit some folks seem to take it to far. That is not cause the Church says they should. It maybe out of ignorance to the true teachings of the Church or other reasons. We don’t know what is going on in their hearts when they are praying in front of a statue of Mary.
God Bless,
-Frank
J
JM3
Guest
You either believe what Jesus said, that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church to all truth, or you don’t. That is your decision to make.
As my signature says “Faith is required of you…not the height of understanding”
J
JM3
Guest
How do you discern the Apostolic deposit of faith when it is oral?
po18guy
Well-known member
Mary is not the savior of the world - only her divine Son Jesus is. She is not, has never been, and will never be divine. But, of all that partake of the Divine Presence and who enjoy the Beatific vision, she is the greatest, sharing blood with Christ after having been chosen by Christ to be His own Mother. She is the mother of God in Christ, but is completely human in her being. She has a very special place in salvation history, and her intercessory power is great, but the Mediator is Jesus Christ. We must differentiate between intercessor and Mediator here.
Do you have a copy of Catholicism for Dummies? It would greatly help you.
T
teeboy
Guest
We see oneness in the letters of the NT.
The apostles were sinners.
The Catholic Church is the only Church, that I can see, which has this oneness.
The daily celebrations of the Eucharist at any time somewhere atound the world is evidence to the oneness.
The apostles were sinners.
The Catholic Church is the only Church, that I can see, which has this oneness.
The daily celebrations of the Eucharist at any time somewhere atound the world is evidence to the oneness.
E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
Any system if belief which is unknown to the apostles is not part of divine truth for the faith of the church, be it scripture writing or an oral tradition. Therefore if an entire culture of early Christianity was anaware of certain things , especially something SO central and essential as a singular unique succession of peter, being something which has authority to bind and loose whatever they wish over all churches and jurisdictions in the world whichvalso claims infallibility should be questioned.
I mean read the council of Trent. There are no doubt mistakes in the sections on justification. I don’t hold to the imputed righteousness of Jesus christ, but I certainly doubt Trent had their understanding of Paul the right way.
I understand justification in Paul to be a gift given from God that can be looked upon as a past completed act for sinners. Thus gift consists of the remission of sin and the establishing of a right relationship with God as judge and father. The grounds for such a gift is the sacrificial death of Jesus. The means of receiving this gift is faith repentance and baptism in water by the word where we are joined into the mystery of Christ’s death and new life. So forgiveness comes when we are renewed, but the forgiveness itself is nit the renewal. I understand justification to be in principle in Paul, not in all places, but simply the forgiveness of sin. Hence he used them interchangeably once in his sermon in acts.
The arguments are clear in Paul and Trent clearly did not get it.
Now we are judged and justified ultimately by works for entering the kingdom, but this is not what Paul is talking about most of the time. Mostly he is referring to the purification of the gentiles even Jews by faith and repentance and the holy spirit without law
I mean read the council of Trent. There are no doubt mistakes in the sections on justification. I don’t hold to the imputed righteousness of Jesus christ, but I certainly doubt Trent had their understanding of Paul the right way.
I understand justification in Paul to be a gift given from God that can be looked upon as a past completed act for sinners. Thus gift consists of the remission of sin and the establishing of a right relationship with God as judge and father. The grounds for such a gift is the sacrificial death of Jesus. The means of receiving this gift is faith repentance and baptism in water by the word where we are joined into the mystery of Christ’s death and new life. So forgiveness comes when we are renewed, but the forgiveness itself is nit the renewal. I understand justification to be in principle in Paul, not in all places, but simply the forgiveness of sin. Hence he used them interchangeably once in his sermon in acts.
The arguments are clear in Paul and Trent clearly did not get it.
Now we are judged and justified ultimately by works for entering the kingdom, but this is not what Paul is talking about most of the time. Mostly he is referring to the purification of the gentiles even Jews by faith and repentance and the holy spirit without law
Z
zz912
Guest
A couple of points:
And Clement ordered them to quit their sinful behavior and reinstall their priests and submit to his rightful authority. And the case was closed.
Imagine what you would do if the Ark of the Old Covenant was found and you were in its presence. Would you show respect? Would you be in awe and reverence? Well we do the same, but more so, with His Mother.
We give her hyper-dulia (highest respect), but we do NOT give her latria (worship reserved for God alone.)
- On the Papacy:
And Clement ordered them to quit their sinful behavior and reinstall their priests and submit to his rightful authority. And the case was closed.
- On Mary:
Imagine what you would do if the Ark of the Old Covenant was found and you were in its presence. Would you show respect? Would you be in awe and reverence? Well we do the same, but more so, with His Mother.
We give her hyper-dulia (highest respect), but we do NOT give her latria (worship reserved for God alone.)
- Status